Protection required for UNICEF brand

While my return Qantas flight from Sydney today wasn’t as eventful as Ralph Fiennes/Lisa Robertson’s, their stoush is worthy of comment from a PR disaster viewpoint. Most of the coverage downunder has generally neglected to document the reputational damage to UNICEF. Fiennes, as a brand ambassador, was apparently travelling ‘en route’ (no pun intended) to India to promote HIV/STD awareness. If it transpires that he didn’t ‘glove-up’ for the toilet tryst, then his cred as a (UNICEF) brand figurehead is somewhat shot. And while Qantas has moved to sack the hostess, there’s no apparent word from UNICEF on the revelations that cast its representative in an inappropriate light. Given that sponsors sack celebs whose behaviour turns repute into disrepute, I’d think a statement would be in order given the risky business under question. Or are UNICEF too ‘nice’ to be grilled over this affair?
Ralph’s metaphorically evoking the fifth, tho his publicist has issues a statement portraying him as a victim of a predatory ‘stargroupie’. Hmmmm… Irrespective of this, every not-for-profit needs to be v circumspect about protecting their ‘brand halos’ as a reputation protected (again no pun) is as the adage says, easier to manage than one lost.